Re: [netconf] Adoption-suitability for draft-unyte-netconf-distributed-notif

Tianran Zhou <> Tue, 11 August 2020 03:28 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 498263A088A for <>; Mon, 10 Aug 2020 20:28:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id e2EMFzRe2_Tx for <>; Mon, 10 Aug 2020 20:28:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3F0D13A0881 for <>; Mon, 10 Aug 2020 20:28:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown []) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 5C59BB30A63654A83C98 for <>; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 04:28:05 +0100 (IST)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1913.5; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 04:28:04 +0100
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1913.5; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 11:28:02 +0800
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.01.1913.007; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 11:28:02 +0800
From: Tianran Zhou <>
To: Andy Bierman <>, Kent Watsen <>
CC: "" <>
Thread-Topic: [netconf] Adoption-suitability for draft-unyte-netconf-distributed-notif
Thread-Index: AQHWa3XT/yp90Vv9H0i3R7lOe+hPQ6kxPqwAgAEGkBA=
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 03:28:02 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_e7ccc6495dd34c4fae15a1697ccd1af5huaweicom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [netconf] Adoption-suitability for draft-unyte-netconf-distributed-notif
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETCONF WG list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 03:28:10 -0000

Hi Andy,

Thanks for your review.
Basically your understanding is correct.
The background is about the distributed notif, which the global subscription will be decomposed to several component subscriptions.
And the client need to compose the data from multiple publishers. It need to know if all the pieces of one data are received.
Current solution depends on ietf-netconf-notification-messages. I just found it’s expired!
I would like to discuss with authors about the plan on that draft. Fortunately you are one coauthor. Could you please help on the answer?
Otherwise, we can seek other way.


From: netconf [] On Behalf Of Andy Bierman
Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2020 3:39 AM
To: Kent Watsen <>
Subject: Re: [netconf] Adoption-suitability for draft-unyte-netconf-distributed-notif


I am trying to understand what problem this draft attempts to solve.
It appears from the solution proposal is that the problem to be solved is
the lack of message generator identifiers associated with configured subscriptions.
These identifiers could presumably help a client understand some implementation details
related to a subscription.  The solution seems to rely on the message-generator-id
field in the notification message (which does not exist in current RFCs).

I do not understand why the client needs this feature.


On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 3:14 PM Kent Watsen <<>> wrote:

Per the previous email sent moments ago, the chairs would like to solicit input on the following draft:

   Title: Subscription to Distributed Notifications
      This documents describes extensions to the YANG notifications
      subscription to allow metrics being published directly from
      processors on line cards to target receivers, while subscription is
      still maintained at the route processor in a distributed forwarding

In particular, please discuss adoption-suitability as it regards to the following questions:

    1) is the problem important for the NETCONF WG to solve?
    2) is the draft a suitable basis for the work?

PS: this message is itself not an adoption poll, but rather an attempt to gauge interest/support for a potential future adoption poll.

netconf mailing list<>